E 

4-4-e 

I? 2.7 




1)110 






SMITIISOMW IIKI DSir 



/ 
SPEECH OF MR.-RAYNER, OF NORTH CAROLINA, ;ei*>>- 



■O N 1 



THE UUESTION OF THE //y Q 



RECEPTION OF ABOLITION PETITIONS. 



,« 



Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. States, on Tuesday, June 15, 184+, 






Mr. Rayner said he was aware he shniild he mot with the same Cjiarge, 
from ascertain quarter, wliicli was made airainst his friend from Virginia, (Mr. 
\V,se) — that his object was to produce at^'itutioii. iJut he took the dislinct 
ground, in the outset of his remarks, that he, an-' those who were battling 
here for tlie riglits of the South, were fi<rhtino: strictly on the dcfvn.sive. \A'e 
are guilty of no aggression (said Mr. R.) We place ourselves under the pro- 
tection of the Constitution. All we ask of you is, that the House may he or- 
ganized according to the parliamentary practice — according to the usage whicli 
has existed here since the origin of the Government. We call u[)on you to 
adopt the rules of the last Congress, till new ones can be reported — that we 
may immediately proceed to the business for which we assembled. We know 
we did not meet here, for the purpose of blowing the embers of sectional strife. 
The patriotism and the intelligence of the nnlioi' demand something more at 
our hands. The eyes of a suffering country are upon us. T then call upon 
the members of the House, in the n^me of our common country, to org.mize 
the House in the usual way — to adopt the old rules, till a committee can have 
time to revise and report new ones. But no — the gentleman from Alassachu- 
setts, (Mr. Adams,) and th.ose who sustain him, must Hrst obtain a triumph 
over the unoffending South. The feelings of every Southern man must be 
outraged, before the first step is taken, towards accomplishing the great task for 
which we were convened. This is a question on which we will yield no- 
thing. We will contest every inch of ground ; and if we fall, we will full fight- 
ing, with our faces to the foe. If evil come of it, we zxg not responsible. We 
have the vantage ground, of siru2:£;lin(r fur our rifftits — of acting on the defen- 
sive. You are the aggressors, and on your heads let the consequences fall. 

I shall vote against every proposition (said Mr. R.) which recognises the 
reception of abolition petitions — which is to place them in the posse:-sion of 
this House — or which tends to conicsr upon them any consideration whatever. 
I shall vote against their reception, because I believe they ask us to violate 
the Constitution; because they are calculated to obstruct the regular course of 
business here — and to foster discord and disunion throughout this country. 
As the Constitution has given ('ongress no power to ** take private property 
except for public use," and then only ou "just compensation," I will not 
even consider a proposition, which asks us to take awav the private property 
of the citizens of the District — not " for public use"— unless " public use" 
consists, in gratifying the whims of agitators in one section of the [Jiiion, at 
the expense of the rights, the interests, and the feelings of another section. 
Such legislation as these petitions ask for, would not be for public use, but for 
the gratification of private malice. I believe I am warranted in saying, that 
the South, with a unanimity une(iualled on any other subject, believes, that 
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia would, so far froni bein^j 
of " public use" to the whole Union, render that Union valueless to thcnj. 
Not only because it would be violative of the Constitution, upon a rigid ad- i 
herence to whcih, they believe their vital interests to depend ; but because it 
■>would be opening a door for still further usurpations; because it would be 
effecting a breach in the walls of the Constitution, through which the citadel 
of liberty itself might hereafter be assailed. If our property, that which the 
Constitution recognises as our property, is to be t;.ken from us, not for a 
public use, bat to appease the demon of fanaticism, what assurance have we, 



\ 






that our own civil rights will not nexibe invaded, and weourselves be reduced 
10 the condilioii of a colonial vassalno-e ? 

But even adriiitting tliat sophistry could distort the abolition of slnverv, in 
lliP District of Columbia, into h " public use," how would you obtain the 
means of "compensation?" Would you tax the citizens of tlie District, to 
raise a fund, to pay them for what already belongs to them? Tliis would not 
only be a mockery of justice, but an insult to tlieir undcrstandiuirs. It would 
be an attempt to legalise fraud, and to cheat the Constitution, by doing indi- 
rectly, that which you cannot do directly. Would you tax the States for 
liiis purpose? It would only be cflecting, by taxing us against our consent, 
that, which you can not do even with our consent — unless by destroying that 
compromise of the Constitution, by which all the great leading interests of 
the country are protected and sustained. By taxing us. to accomplish an ob- 
— ject which must prove destructive to our interests, you inflict a double hard- 
ship upon us ; you add insult to injury; you make us pay for the very lash 
which is to scourge us — for the very poison that is to work our destruction. 

But admitting there were no injustice, in taxing the South to efiect an ob- 
ject, which, without taxation, would be sowing the very seeds of ruin in our 
soil — siill, you are met with another diHiculty, as insurmountable as if there 
>rere a positive prohibition incorporated in the Constitution itself. I refer to 
the compact, entered into between the States, through tlieir joint agents here, 
and the States of Virginia and Maryland, as contained in their deeds of ces- 
sion. The deeds of cession from those States have expressly provided 
uL''ainst any such emergency as this. The deed of cession from Yirsriuia ex- 
ju'cssly declares, that "nothing therein contained shall be constnied to vest in 
the United States any right of property in the soil, or to allect the rights of 
individuals therein, otherwise than may be transferred by such individuals to 
the United States." Now here is an express provision, granting to the in- 
liabitants of this District, unimpaired, all the rights and title to property, 
which they had, when under the protection of the State governments. AVill 
any one pretend to say that this stipulation is not binding, and that we, 
as the representatives of the States, are not bound, by all the solenniity of 
plighted I'aith, to see that the bond is stricUy complied with ? Here the States 
of Virginia and Maryland, for a certain consideration, agreed to relinquish all 
jurisdiction over the ceded territory, to tlie General Government. That con- 
sideration was, that tlie citizens of the District should not be molested in the 
possession of their pr()|)erty, or enjoyment of their rii^hts ; and will any one 
now pretend to say, that any false mawkish notion of benevolence can ab- 
solve this (Jovernment from its obligations ? Why, sir, the obliiration is as 
binding as the Constitution itself. The Constitution is only a contract, de- 
pendent for its observance, upon the jjHohtcd faith of those who ibrmed it; 
Avhere each of the States has pledged itself to all, and all to each, to the ob- 
servance of certain stipulations, which are to form a basis of government. 
The deeds of cession from Virginia and Maryland are also a contract, where 
the other States have phidged tlnnr faiih, to respect and protect the rights and 
jiroperty of the people of the Disiricl — which contract, we, as the representa- 
tives of those States, are bound by every consideration of lionor, as well as 
duty, to observe. Why, it is to the magnanimity and patriotism of those 
Stales, that we are indebted for the very privilege of discussing this question 
here, for the very place of our legislation, for the very site of this fair and 
splendid edilice-^and shall we requite their kindness and liberality, by erect- 
iuix the very soil which they have given us, into a platform wherefrom to as- 
sail them I This would be playing the \)\\vi of the serpent in the fable, which, 
when warmed, and restored to'life at the hearth of the husbandman, repaid his 
kindness l)y striking iiisown child with its deadly langs. 

it there had been no guaranty on the pan of tiie (ieneral Government, to 
proirci the ciii/ens of the District in the enjoyment of their property and their 



K ritrhts, still, It wotiltl be restrained bv every consideration of lienor and jus- 
c; lice, from interterinfr with the iiistilutioii of slavery here. For, who can for 
,^a moment believe, that Virginia and Maryland ever would have ceded tlioir 
<;^* territory, if they could have supposed it was afterwards to become an arena 
for Ainatics and incendiaries, from wlience the fire brand of commotion could 
be hurled into their borders ? Does any one suppose, that they ever would 
have ceded a spot, in the very heart of their territory, if they could have 
imagined it was afterwards to become the stronghold of the enemies of their 
institutions — whence their rights and their interests were to be daily assailed? 
No one can doubt upon the subject for a moment, after seeing tlie sensitive- 
ness of the people of those States upon this question — their impatience, nay, 
their indignation, at the manner in which their liberality is attempted to be 
abused. Even in the absence of any express provision — the deep and vital 
interest which is felt upon the subject in those Stales, the watchful jealousy 
which they exercise over this matter, and the disastrous consequences resulting 
to those States, from any interference with the subject in this District — in con- 
nection with the absolute certainly, that those Stales never would have ceded 
this territory, had they supposed it possible that their liberality was ever to 
be so much abused — raise an implied stipulation on the part of tliis Govern- 
ment, that this question should not be disturbed by it. 

If, then, the Constitution prohibits you from taking private property, except 
for public use, how can you rob the people of this District of their rights, 
merely to gratify the fiendish appetite of fanaticism ? If your Government has 
entered into a solemn contract, for a valuable consideration, to protect these 
people in all the rights and privileges which they enjoyed under tiie ceding 
States, how can you take their property, without violating the plighted faith 
of the nation? If you are certain in your own mind — as you must be — that 
Virginia and Maryland never would have ceded this territory, had they sup- 
posed it possible that this Government ever would have taken a step so detri- 
mental to their interests, how can you now impose upon their liberality, and 
abuse their confidence, without violating " every precept of morality, every 
sentiment of honor? 

But gentlemen tell us, that by refusing to receive these petitions, we violate 
that right of petition, which is guaranteed in the Constitution to tlie citizens 
of this country. But I insist upon it, that the Constitution must be complied 
with, by the use of constitutional means'. You have no right to violate the 
Constitution, under a pretence that it is necessary to the enjoyment of a con- 
stitutional privilege. The means must be commensurate with the end. 'J'he 
Constitution would be a dead letter, and its restrictions a mere mockery, if 
its provisions are to be violated, under the pretence that such violation is neces- 
sary to the enjoyment of a right claimed under it. If this construction of the 
Constitution is once adopted, there is no violation of its provisions, no mattec 
how flagrant soever it may be, that sophistry and interest will not distort into a 
means indispensably necessary to the enjoyment of an admitted right. You 
thus destroy the safeguards of the Constitution, in a pretended zeal for their 
observance. Such a regard for the Constitution as this, is destructive of the 
very end and object proposed. It is like the embrace of a giant, that smoth- 
ers in his grasp, the very object of his love. 

The Constitution says, that the people have a right " peaceably to assem- 
ble and petition for a redress of grievances." Here we see that the right to 
petition is not unlimited in its nature, but is restricted and confined to " a re- 
dress of grievances." A redress of whose grievances? — their own grievan- 
ces, or the grievances of others ? It requires no proficiency in constitutional 
law to answer the question. Common sense must answer it. If it is for a re- 
dress of their own grievances, then they have no right to have considered, 
petitions which Iiarrass this House session after session, obstructing the pro- 
gress of public busines?, and sov.ing the seeds of tumult vwd conlusion la 



this hall — for a redress of what they woulJ call the i^rievanres of the slaves 
of this District — thereLiy endangering the existence of that very Constitution, 
under which they pretend to claim the right. It certainly cannot be, that the 
Constitution gives the right to petition for a redress of the grievances of oth- 
ers ; if so, where is its benevolent operation to terminate ? Is it limited to the 
grievances of the people of the United States, or of the western continent? — 
or of the civilized world? Once you pass tlie limit, within which common 
sense must confine the operation of this privilege, and there is no people, no 
matter however remote they may be, no grievance no matter howsoever ima- 
ginary, that is not a legitimate object of petition, and to which we are not 
bound to attend. If these people have a right to have considered, petitions 
asking for a redress, not of their own, but, of the grievances of others — then 
they have a right to petition us to declare war against Texas, on account of the 
toleration of slavery in that country — they have a right to {)etition us to inter- 
fere in dissolving tiie union between England and Ireland, on account of the 
grievances under which the people of the latter country may suffer. They 
have a riglit to petition us to make war against Russia or Austria, for permit- 
ting the landed proprietors in those countries, to retain in bondage, the thou- 
sands of wretched serfs, whose condition is ten times as bad as that of the 
slaves of the South. And if the right of petition means the right to have the 
petition considered, we should be bound t(j take the prayers of such petitions 
under our most serious consideration. 

So you see to what absurdities the doctrine would lead us. Establish the 
principle, that any portion of the people of this country have a right to peti- 
tion for redress, not of their own, but of the grievances of others — and if of 
others, of the whole world — and there is no subject, no matter how liiiie con- 
nected with our constitutional duties — no matter how remote iVom the pur- 
poses of our election — petitions on which, we would not be compelled to re- 
ceive, and il to receive, on which we would not be compelled to act. And 
thus might this House be kept not only in interminable confusion, but at an 
endless labor, merely to gratil'y the restless and importunate cravings of a band 
of fanatics. 

The absurdity then, to which a diflerent construction would lead us, proves, 
that tlie right of tiie citizen to have considered, a petition for the redress of griev- 
ances, must be qualified, by confining it to his oivn, and not the grievances of 
flthern. But sir, the right of petition for a redress of his own grievances, is not 
unlimited in its nature. It must be restricted to those grievances only which Con- 
gress has the constitutional power to redress, or rather, which it is not clearly 
forbid to redress. If the citizen claims a privilege, in pursuance of a provision in 
the constitution, that privilege must be exercised and enjoved, by the use of con- 
stitutional means. The constitution certainly never intended to confer upon the 
citizen, tlie right to petition Congress to do that, which it has refused Congress 
\\ie. poivf:r to do. If so, we would be bound to receive petitions praying for 
the nhfllition of the Constitution itself — nay, sir, we would be bound to re- 
ceive petitions praying for the destruction of our republican system, and the 
establishment of a kingly government. There is nothing so al^surd, so abu- 
sive, so anti-republican soever it might be, that would not be a legitimate sub- 
ject of petition, and the reception and consideration of which, would not be ob- 
ligatory upon us. Suppose petitions were sent here, complaining of the ex- 
cesses of democracy, as a grievance, and praying for the establishment of an 
order of nobility in this country, for the purpose of checking its violence — 
would you be bound to receive them? Suppose petitions were to come here 
from the South, denouncing the manufactories of the North, as public nuisances, 
complaining of the grievances of the laborers in those establishments, of the 
cruelty of their taskmasters, of the tyranny to which they are subjected — and 
praying Congress to jia-^s a law, that if they were not all abandoned by a 



given (lav, they should be abated as nui?anrps by the public offirer, or 
confiscated to the public use — would gentlemen from the North vote for tlic 
reception of such petitions. Suppose petitions were to come here from tlie 
Roman Catholics, askiiiu- us to pa^s a law forbiddins the use of meat on ce - 
tain days; or from tlie Jews, asking us to prevent the toleration of the CMiri: - 
tian religion, or from Fanny Wright and her followers, asking us to abolisii il e 
institution oi' marriane — would gentlemen who come from the land of steady 
habits, be so sensitive about tht^ right of petition ? \Vould they feel bound 
to receive them I ;md to treat them with respect ? Would the gentleman from 
Massacliusetls (Mr. Adams,) vote to receive such propositions ? 

Mr. Adams. One oroat objection to slavery is, that it does abolish marriage. 
Slavery tears husband from wife, parent from child. That is one of the grie- 
vances attending it. It destroys all the relations of life, and among them the 
lies of marriage. How have I seen it operate in this very district? 

Mr Kaynkr. I yielded the floor lo the gentleman, for an answer to my 
question, and not for an argument. 

Mr. AuAMs. Then ask me no more questions. If I am to be stopped as 
soon as I begin to answer, let no more questions be asked me. 

Mr. Ravner. The gentleman has dodged the question, with his usual ability 
and sagacity. I suppose the gentleman from Massachusetts is opposed to nulli- 
fication, and would consign lo oblivion and disgrace, all who dilfer with him ou 
tliatsubject; because he would say, the tendency of nullification was to disunion. 
Would he receive petitions, asking for a dissolution of the union of these Stales ? 
Would he feel bound lo receive and refer ])etilions, praying for the establishment 
of a religion bylaw ? Suppose petitions come here couched in language too vul- 
gar and obscene for the ears of decency — suppose they teem with blasphemy 
against the God who overlooks and protects us ; suppose they breathe of that 
sin and pollution, amid scenes of which I learn these abolition petitions have 
their origin — acording to the doctrine insisted on, we can exercise no dis- 
cretion, we are bound to receive them, and to bestow upon them our most 
gracious consideration. Suppose we arc petitioned to dissolve the Union, why 
we must immediately set about and calculate its value. According to this con- 
struction of the Constitution, it contains within itself the elements of its own 
destruction. Il has provided the very means by which it may be cautiously 
approached, successfully assailed, and inevitably destroyed. These agita- 
tors pretend, that it is a sacred regard for the rights secured by the Constitu- 
tion, that actuates them ; yet in the excess of their devotion, in the fervour of 
their affection for the Constitution, they stab it to the heart, as Joab did Abner, 
when pretending to embrace it. Why sir, it is ridiculous, it is absurd, to talk 
about the constitution imposing on Congress, the duty to do that, which must 
inevitably work a destruction of the Constitution itself. 

I presume the House has the power, if it thought proper in its discretion to 
do so, to receive petitioners themselves at the bar of the House, and hear their 
grievances verbally explained. Well, are petitions drawn out on paper, and 
subscribed by the petitioners, entitled to more respect, or more binding in 
their obligation on us to receive them, than if the petitioners were to present 
themselves here in person? Certainly not — and who will deny, that the 
house in the latter case, would have power, and be fully justified, in driving 
the petitioners from our doors, if they addressed us in abusive or disrespect- 
ful language ? And the house would, and must of necessity, be the judge, in its 
discretion, whether the petitioners demeaned themselves in a becoming man- 
ner, or not. This power must result from the inlierent and necessary right of 
every legislative body to protect itself, and preserve its own dignity, in the ex- 
ercise of its legal functions. Then, if the House would have the right to drive 
from its doors for improper conduct, or disrespectful language, or an attempt 
to disturb the order and harmony of the House and the Union, the petitioners 



themselves ; it mMsMiave the right to refuse to receive tlieir petitions for like 
cause ; unless pen, ink, and paper, can impart a sanctity to petition, whicli it 
does not possess wlien orally made. This House must have the power to 
protect itself iVom outrage and insult; in doinij so, it must exercise its own 
discretion ; and in the exercise of this discretion, a sound and enlightened pub- 
lic opinion will always secure for petitions tiiat are respectful, and within the 
limits of our constitutional power, a calm and dispassionate consideration. 
And this point being yielded — that Congress must have the power to protect 
itself from insult and abuse, of which it can be the only judge, in its discre- 
tion — and every thing is yielded ; and all the sophistical arguments that are 
built upon the assumption, that Congress is bound to regard the right of pe- 
tition without any qualification, must tumble to the ground. For all the stren- 
uous advocates of the doctrine, that we are bound to receive and refer those 
petitions, are compelled to take the ground, that the right of petition is sacred, 
inviolalile, and obligatory in its nature, and that it leaves Congress no discre- 
tion on the subject; and that we are bound, without regard to the subject 
matter, or the language in which they are couched, to receive all petitions, 
respectfully refer and report upon them, even to the neglect of other pressing 
and important business of the nation. 

But gentlemen tell us, it is the sacred riglit of petition these people are 
contending for. Very good, sir, no one denies tliem the right of petition. In- 
sulting and vexatious though it be to us, still we do not deny them the right 
to assemble together; to interchange their views ; to listen to the hypocritical 
rant, and rhapsodical appeals of their priestly impostors ; to shed as many 
crocodile tears as they please, over the imaginary wrongs of the poor slaves of 
the South, that are far happier than tlie thousands of starving wretches who 
need their charity at home ; we are willing that they should abuse us of the 
South, as tyrants, and deserving of massacre, as much as they choose; we 
are willing to all this ; but we are not willing that their vile petitions, which 
ask us to violate the Constitution, and to put in jeopardy the peace and happi- 
ness of the people of this country, should receive any countenance from this 
body, the members of which are sworn to support the Constitution, and who 
ought to be the guardians of the rights and liberties of the people of the States. 
"We insist upon it, that the petitions should be treated in the same w-ay, the 
petitioners themselves would deserve to be treated, if they were to present 
themselves in person, disturbing our harmony and interrupting our proceed- 
ings — that our doors should be shut against tiiem, and they driven with indig- 
nation from our presence. AViien petitions are presented here, that are re- 
spectful in their language, praving for a redress of the grievances of those 
who petition, and which relate to a sul)ject within our constitutional jurisdic- 
tion ; the spirit of our free institutions requires, that we shotdd, in the exer- 
cise of that sound discretion, wiiich this bodv nuist possess for its own pre- 
servation, receive them, and respectfully consider them. Init when they arc 
violent in their tone, disrespectful and abusive to a large portion of the people 
olthis country, praying for a redress not of their own real grievances, but the 
imaginary grievnnces of others; wiien they ask us to throw the country into 
disorder and commotion, and to violate the (yonstitution which is the very soul 
of the Union ; so far from being received, they sliouhl be njecteil with scorn 
and contempt. 

Hut, sir, what is the right of petition, in the constitutional meanincr of the 
term ? Is it the right of the ))eople to assnnhle foixethtr without molestation, 
and to express their wishes to the Legislature ; or is it the right to have their 
petitions unqualifiedly and unconditionally received, referred, and acted on/ 
It certainly cannot nif an the latter, for the same process of reasoning, that 
would e.stiiblish it as the dutv of Congress, to receive all petitions that are pre- 
fcnted, of whatsoever I'hnrnctcr, would ulho prove it to be thi'ir bouudcn duty 



to s^rmit the prayers of the petitionrrs, wlien received. Rpcaupe the duty "f 
Conoress to receive them, is an inference only, to be drawn from a latitude 
of ccrnstruction ; and the same latitude of construction, by going a step far- 
ther, could as easily prove, that the power petitioned is bound to grant the ap- 
plicant's prayer. If the right of petition means any thing more than the right 
to assemble— to subscribe, if you please, and offer the petition — how much 
more does it mean, and what, and where, is the rule by which you apply its 
meaning? Do you derive your rule of construction from the Constitution, or 
from the law ? If so, where is it? If the right of petition does not necessa- 
rily include the right to have the petition granted, what is the difference be- 
tween rejecting it at the threshhold, on account of its unconstitutionality and 
tendency to disunion, and doing so afterwards, on account of its inexpediency? 
If it does include the right to have the petition granted, why then there is an 
end to the Government, for there is no act of legislation, to which some fac- 
tious spirit would not object, and thus the action of this House might ever be 
kept suspended, between petition on the one hand, and counter petition on the 
other. Sir, I again ask, what is the riglit of petition as provided for in the 
Constitution ? if my recollection of history is correct, it grew out of, and is 
intended to guard aga'inst, the dangers and dilficulties, which beset the friends 
of liberty, during their struggles against the despotism of the latter Stuarts. 
It is well known, that the peaceable assemblages of the opponents of power 
in those times, were frequently annoyed and dispersed by military ibrce, un- 
der the pretence, that they were collected for treasonable and seditious pur- 
poses. And this right of' assembling to consult together, for the purpose of 
laying their complaints before Parliament, was one of the great piivileges 
contended for, and recognised in the bill of rights, signed by the 'Sd William, 
when he wao called to the English throne in 1088. 'Jliis right of petition, 
so much talked of, is secured to the English citizen as well as to ours ; yet 
who will contend that Parliament would be bound to receive, refer, and con- 
sider, a petition, praying for the expulsion of the house of lirunswick, and the 
restoration of the Stuarts ? Does any one here believe, that such a petition 
would receive countenance from the Common-s of England ? So far from it, 
it would place in peril the petitioner's head. 

This right of petition, secured to the people of England by the bill of 
rights, was claimed and exercised before the Kevolution, by these colonies, as 
a component part of the British realm. Anil the grounds upon which its vio- 
lation was complained of, during the early struggles of the colonies against the 
tyranny of the mother country, was, not that their petitions were not receiv- 
ed, but that " large bodies of armed troops were quartered among them," for 
the purpose of overawing their deliberations, and of interrupting tiieir peaceful 
assemblages, when quietly convened, for the purpose of consulting for iheir 
common good. This is one of the grievances set Ibrth in the Declaration of 
Independence, a protection against which was afterwards incorjiorated in our 
fundamental law. Judging, then, from the history of this question, and tiie 
probable motives which caused its insertion in the ('onsiiliition, it has refer- 
ence to the acts and personal security of the petitioners — their right to as- 
semble together, to consult for their common good — io send on their petitions 
hx presentation, if you please, and not to any obligation on the part of the 
petitioned to <rrant, or to receive, the prayers of the applicants. As to the 
course of action on the part of the Legislature, it must bcregidated by sound 
discretion, by a prudent policy, by an enlightened public opinion, and by ihe 
provisions of the Constitution, in regard to the subject-nuitter of the petitions. 
For if there is an unlimited and unqnalilied obligation on the part of Congress. 
to receive and consider all petitions, then we would be bound to receive and 
respectfully entertain, \ etition? praying us ti» abolish thn Constitution, and to 
return once more under the rulunial doiuinion of England. Gentlemen may 



*ay ihi.s is an e.vtroinp c.x^e. I know ii is— Init still, this is a lawful and prac- 
ticable mcthoJ of argument, and is well calculated to expose the absurdity 
ot the principle contended for. 

I believe the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of 
t.o iumbia, IS usually claimed under that clau.^e which says that Conaress 
f>lull have power "to ex«rci.-e exclusive leijislation, in all cases whatsoever, 
over such district (not exceedinsr ten miles square) as may, bv cession of 
particular Slates, and the acceptanr-e of Congress, become the' seal of the 
.ovcrnment ol the United Slates," &c. I believe the abolitionists admit— 
1 know 1 have heard the irentleman from Vermont, (Mr. Slade,) admit it— 
that if the power is not derived from the srrant of ^^ exclimve legislation^ 
tlien shivery in the district is not a <rrievance, for a redress of which, the people 
nl the north have a riirht to petition. Now, what is the meanin<T of exclusive 
if'gislation .' Does it mean absolute and unlimited legislation? Certainly 
not. J he word exclusive is an adjective pan of speech, and in expressiwr 
liie qualiljj of the substantive to which it is a[)plied, it has a neo-ative relation 
to other or dUferent inlluence, than that of the preceding power to wliich it 
rohTs. Lxchisive, in its derivative sense, means the shutting; out, or casting 
<:// oi any other. It is intended to denote the quality, and not the quantity, 
or amount, of legislation to which it may relate. And the quality which it 
iienoics,x^,\h:iiM shuts out all legislation bv anv other power. Webster, 
in his duuionary, defines exclusive as meaning— " having the power of pre- 
venling entrance— debanng from participaiion— possessed and enjoyed to th** 
exclusion of olherf=." The Legislature of North Carolina has exclusive legis- 
anon over all the territory included within the limits of that State, except so 
laras n has granted it to this Government; -.xm] vet that Legislature has not 
the power to abolish slavery in that State, because slavery is an institution 
recognized by her consiitulion, in the apportionment of her representation, in 
the imposition ol taxation, and in the right of property which it guarantees to 
the citizen. 1 he master in tiie south has the exclusive right of propertv in 
ins slave; still he has not unlimited power over him, as had the ancient 
Komans over their slaves. He cannot put him to death ; and, in my State, 
iie is compelled, by statute, to clothe him, to feed him, and to treat him hu- 
manely. 1 he Conslituiion has left to the State I-egielatures the exclusive 
right of choosing their Senators in Congress : still they have not an unlimited 
and absolute control of the matter— they must select them from within the 
Mate for which they are chosen ; and" cannot select p(>rsons muler thirty 
years of age. The company of the Washington and lialtimore rail-road have 
tlie exclusive right of transportation on that road : yet they have not the ab- 
sofute and unlimited power to transport the person or property of any man 
against his will ; neither have they the right to wantonlv run their engines over 
any luckless traveller, who may happen to straggle across their track. And 
so the "exclusive legislation" mentioned in the Constitution, while it excludes 
legislation by any other power, still does not grant to Congress an absolute 
and nn imited control over those subjects, on which it is authorized to legis- 
late. If excluKivc legislation means unlimited ieirislation, then Compress has 
power to establish a censorship of the j.ress for this district, or to establish 
ihercnn a religion by law. 

I liavc frequently heaid it eaid, that this matter would not have been 
fell so vague and indclinile, if Virginia and Marvland had intended to re- 
«lnct the General (u)vernniciit in its legislative aci'ion ; but that thev would 
have inserted a provision, that would have placed the question "beyond 
i oubt. I have already attempted to show, that this ease was fully provi- 
Ued lor in the deeds of cession, juid that the restriction is .ntire and coin- 
plote. Hut. if there had been no exjJiess restriction, it would not have 
altered the cast, .No one believes that cither of those Stales would ever have 



ceded llie territorv in qtiestion, could they have supposed the General Gov- 
ernment would ever so far violate every principle ol' faith and justice, as to 
convert this district into an asylum and a refuge for their runaway slaves. 
The cession, however, was made in the purer days of the repuhlic, when its 
destinies were controlled by the same men who achieved its liberties, and 
the noble impulses of freedom and patriotism beat high and bounding in their 
bosoms. Those States could not then have supposed, that, in fifty years, 
faction and fanaticism was to shake this Union to its centre ; and that a boon, 
which they bestowed from the purest motives of patriotism, was to be used 
as a means of their destruction. Amid the warmth of those generous impul- 
ses that excited to the deed, it is not to be supposed, that they should have 
been as exacting as Shylock, or as accurate as a miser w'hen counting his 
gold. If no provision of restriction had been inserted, the General Govern- 
njent could not have exercised the power, without being guilty of an act of 
perfidy, disgraceful to the Government, and disreputable to the American 
character. It is cruel, at all times, to deceive the credulous and unwary, 
even when no fatal injury is to be the result; but to take advantage of confi- 
dence reposed, to plot disaster and ruin against the innocent and confiding 
party, is crime unpardonable, and when committed by a nation, is " a re- 
proach to any people." Yes, sir, in the absence of any provision, if this 
Government were to violate the faith reposed in it by Virginia and Maryland, 
then American faith might well become a bye-word and a reproach, in modern 
times — as Punic faith was among the ancients, to denote the perfidy and in- 
sincerity of the Carthagenian character. 

I presume noone will deny, that the abolition of slavery in this District, by 
this Government, would be an act of perfidy towards Maryland and Virginia, 
who ceded the territory. And w-ill gentlemen yet insist, that we should re- 
ceive and consider petitions, which call upon us to commit a gross and wilful 
act of perfidy? Now I presume it is unnecessary for me to undertake to 
prove, that a proposition to commit an act of perfidy, ought not to be enter- 
tained in this House. If an honest and conscientious man in private life, would 
leject such a proposition with scorn and indignation, ought not the assembled 
representatives of a Christian people to do it? Perfidy, which is a violation of 
confidence, of trust reposed, is a crime which, in all ages of the world, has 
been stamped with the deepest reprobation ; and which untutored savages even 
look upon with horror. The wild Arab of the desert, who roams in quest 
of plunder, and whose mind has never been illumined by the beams of Chris- 
tian light, not only observes his promise with scrupulous fidelity, but looks 
upon the way-worn traveller who enters his tent, as inviolable in his purse 
and person ; and would risk his life, in defence of the guest who relies up- 
on an iw;)/tef?assuranceof his protection. And shall it be said that a Christian 
people, who boast of their civilization, and of their regard for all the obliga- 
tions of morality and justice, are guilty of an act of perfidy, which would 
bring the blush of shame to an Arab's cheek ? Will this Government legal- 
ize treachery ? will it knowingly and wilfully violate the confidence which 
has been reposed in it? Gentlemen who favor the views of the fanatics, talk 
a great deal about moral right and justice. Here is a case, which affords 
them an opportunity of showing their sense of moral right. For there is a 
great moral principle involved in this issue ; it is whether plighted faith is here- 
after to be regarded among men, or whether it is to be treated as a jest. It is, 
whether confidence is hereafter to be observed, or doubt and suspicion to pre- 
vail in its stead. Why, sir, what sort ofa spectacle would the human family 
present, if all confidence were destroyed between man and man ? Banish 
confidence from the world, and you produce a social chaos. Governments ex- 
ist by confidence, society is held together by no other tie — and all the tender 



10 

and endearinj? relations of life, would lose their charm without it. Destroy 
confidence, and then indeed, is friendship 

" but a name, 

A charm that lulls to sleep," 

and a still more tender relation yields its power to 

" The green-eyed monster, which doth mock 
The meat it feeds on." 

Establish the principle, that plighted faith is not to be regarded, and you con- 
vert man, from a social being, into a gloomy misanthrope. Destroy confi- 
dence between nations, and intercourse must be suspended ; and where com- 
merce now spreads her canvass to the breeze, solitude will brood over the 
bosom of the deep. Destroy confidence, and you dissolve the cement that 
binds this Union together ; you convert this building from a legislative hall 
into a castle of defence ; and where our stars and stripes now wave in the 
breeze, armed sentinels will. soon keep watch. 

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to attempt to show, that the interference of 
Congress, with the sale of slaves between the States; the abolition of slavery 
in the Territories ; or the prohibition of slavery in the new States to be ad- 
mitted into the Union, would be equally unconstitutional, and violative of 
good faith, as the interference of slavery in this District; but having occupied 
the time of the House so long, I cannot now go into either of those questions. 

The genUeman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) remarked, in quoting the 
language of another, that there was not one of the attributes of the Almighty, 
on the side of tliose who tolerate slavery, or who would attempt to quell a ser- 
vile insurrection by force. Here the gentleman has chosen to forget the Consti- 
tution and the law, and to place this question upon the great principles of moral 
riglit and of tlie Divine law. I will not stop to look at tlie direful consequen- 
ces, growing out of the loose application of such a doctrine as this, to the af- 
fairs of human legislation. It sweeps away, in a moment, all the restraints of 
law and order; and subjects all social compacts, all conventional agreements, 
all legislalive enactments, to the capricious and factious construction, which a 
blind and infuriated multitude might place, upon the principles and require- 
ments of the moral law. It is disorganizing, it is revolutionary — and lets 
loose upon the world, all the tumultuous impulses of human passion. So far 
as relates to human government and to temporal institutions, tJiesc must be a 
matter of conventional arrangement — of plighted faith. As to the abstract 
and inherent behests of the Divine law, tltci/ rest only in the bosom of that 
great Being who governs the world— and He, in his appointed time, will mete 
out justice in due proportion, to the offender and the offended. And will the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and his abolition friends, presume to assert one 
of the attributes of Deity itself? Will they undertake to avenge, what they 
call ni their fanatical jargon, the accumulated' wrongs of an injured race ? How 
dare they be guilty of such impious presumption? "Vengeance is mine 
snith the Lord," says that book which we are all taii<:htto reverence. In their 
wild rant iihoMijmlke, they should recollect that injunction of the decalogue, 
which says, " thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's man servant, nor his maid 
servant, nor any thing that is his." We also demand nothing but justire. 
We claim to be let alone— to be left free to the enjovment of those rights, that 
are guaranteed to us by the Constitution of our country; and as to any viola- 
tion of justice, or of the moral law, we are responsible to that Being", before 
whom we must all apj)ear in judgment. 

'IMie giMilleman from Massachusetts told us, that this movement on the part 
of the abolitiiinisis, was in accordance with that progress of public opinion 
which is pervading the world. He referred to the emancipation of (he slaves 
in the West Indies, and to the gradual progress of mental improvement even 



11 

in China itself. I was really surprised to hear a man of his reach and pow- 
er of understanding, advance an argument on this subject, winch a pigmy m 
intellect can overturn in a moment. What, does he put the power ot this 
House, on a level with the power of the British Parliament ? Has he .lu.te 
forgotten the Constitution ? Does lie not know that our powers are hmUed, 
while those of Parliament are said to be omnipotent ? If the Covernments ot 
EnMand and France have seen fit to abolish slavery ui their dommions, they 
had\n unlimited right to do so ; but I have never yet heard of that nation, 
which has ever advanced the claim to interfere with this institution, on the 
soil, and within the jurisdiction, of another country. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts spoke, with much apparent pride, of the emancipation by 
England of the slaves in her W est India possessions. If he is willing to 
know the workings of this system, 1 refer him to an article in the Edinburgh 
Review* for January, 1841, entitled "Wrongs and Claims of Indian Com- 
merce," from which it will be seen, that the present degraded and unhappy 
condition of the emancipated slaves there, needs his sympathy much more 
than do the slaves of our Southern States. If slavery be an evil, the remedy 
must be left to ourselves ; and we need not the mawkish sensibility of those 
who are unacquainted with our situation, to teach us our duty or our interest. 
This attempt to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, is false and 
deceptive in its character; for it cannot be concealed,t hat the object is to gain 
a foothold, wherefrom to assail slavery more eflectually in the States. 1 
know this was for a long lime denied ; in fact, at the commencement ot this 
aaitation, we were told that they did not contemplate any legislative action 
whatever ; but that their only object, was to exercise a moral iniluence upon 
public opinion. But they have changed their position My friend trom 
Georgia (Mr. King,) who, the other day, threw himself so gallantly in the 

• "This misundcrstandins [between the managers and laborersJ-thouRh the term is too 
mild adequately to represent the existing relation of the parties,-has ansen from the un- 
^..ise endeavor of the planters to compel labor, by the exercise ot a species ot coer on 
futile for every purpose but annoyance and exasperation. It has been attempted o n ake 
the dwellingslnd provision grounds of the negroes, the instruments of comjelhng them o 
>vork for the land-owner on whose plantation they reside, or of reducing their wages. The 
lan<^ua<re used has been, ' if you will not work for me, you must quit immediately you. 
house and land,' (to the latter of which the labor of the tenant has given its principal va- 
lue ;T '"you d;mand so much a week for wages, I demand so much for rent, or rather so 
much for each member of your family, without reference to the actual value of the tene- 
me^t and i?s appurtenances; and the one demand and the other shall be sunutaneously 
adjusted.' The strong arm of the law has been liberally invoked, to car.-y on the contest 
commenced on such grounds : legislation has not been spared to render it stronger. The 
pkn'rs being the makers, in some instances the administrators of the laws enactments of 
Se most hetero.^eneous description have been brought to bear upon the^ unfortunate labor- 
xs There are'the contract act, the poundage act, the tishery act, the huckster and pedar 
act the petty debt act, the police act, and the vagrant act, all of which (except the lirst. 
tvWch h^ do'es not me'ntion') Mr. Gurney designates as 'local 1-- opposed to the true n- 
tent and purpose of the act of emancipation.' ' The petty debt act, he .ajs, allords tre 
mendous'facfhties to that oppressive system of penal and ficntious -ts, which is nowjhe 
very bane of Jamaica. A police, armed with deadly weapons, is alwav,, to »ay the lea*t 
oiraiangerous expedient; and in country districts wliere there is confessedly scarcely 
an crime It can be regarded only as a needless source of irritation and alarm. Too soon 
may ifai; became an instrumeniof oppression and cruelty. ^Finally, in a countryvl^re 
tTere is scarcely to be found an instance of real vagabondism, but where abon^r. are often 
con p led to eLe their homes in search of new locations, one cannot but ^^^^^^^J^l 
Lndencvofalaw which subjects every poor fellow who may be found sleeping nulr a 
hedge irtn an ^ut-house by die road-side, to a long term «f -P^-'''-^^^^^'^^'^;//, ^ 
bor in a renal -ang.' In other cases, still rougher measures have been taken to coerce la 
b o to'revenge Us being withheld ;-' cocoa-nut and bread-fruit ^re- ha- been Jell d 
cottages have been unroofed, and sometimes demolished; pigs have ^oc^^ , ;1^?J • F°; ^^°^ 
grounds have been destroyed ; the pleasant fruit of God s earth uprooted In the rudt hand 
of violence, or trodden under feet by oxen. ' 



12 

breach, has proven from the record, from their own published documents, that 
the object of these agitators, is general abolition. And if it is to be com- 
menced by legislation, will it not be continued, and consummated by legisla- 
tion .' Then 1 not only appeal to Southern men, but to Northern men, and I ask 
them, if they will entertain a proposition, which carries deception and false- 
liood upon its very face ; and which is only intended as an entering wedge to 
the attaiimient of an object, which no man here will iiow have tlie hardihood 
to advocate. Disguise it as they may, it is a covert and base design, to abolish 
by legislation, the institution of slavery throughout the entire South. We all 
know the insidious progress of power, whether veiled under the jlbrms of le- 
gislation, or exercised by the absolute will of one man. Its approach at first is 
slow and cautious ; but it gains strength at each successive step ; till finally it 
" bestriiles us like a mighty Colossus;" and when it is too late, we must 
either appeal to the idti/na ratio of revolution, or " find for ourselves dishon- 
orable graves." jVoiv, now, is the time to arrest this evil ; we must resist it 
in the outset; we must cut out this incipient cancer by the root. We must 
not only cut olFthe head of this Hydra, but like Hercules, we must apply the 
searing iron, to prevent its return with still more horrid featuies. 

Sir, I will not attempt to discuss the isolated question of slavery, as it ex- 
ists in the States ; or attempt to prove on this iloor, our right to our own pro- 
perly. All we have to say on this subject is, if you want our slaves, " come 
and take them." But before you enter upon this mad crusade, I would ad- 
vise you to count well the cost of your undertaking. Before you accomplish 
your purpose, you must march over hecatombs of bodies ; you must convert 
every one of our smiling fields into a camp ; you must beat every one of your 
ploughshares into swords. Long, long, before you reach the banks of the 
Koanoke, every stream will run red with your blood, every hill will whiten 
with your bones. Attempt this wild project, when you will, and if there be 
any truth in Heathen story, the banks of the Styx will be lined with your 
shivering ghosts, for a hundred years to come. And the battle will not be 
fought by the descendants of the Cavaliers alone, as intimated by the gentleman 
from Kentucky, (Mr. Marshall;) when your myrmidons, after conquering 
them, shall reach the borders of the Old Norlli State, they will find the brawny 
sons of the mountains, and the quiet citizens of the plains, congregated on 
our northern border ; we will there form a rampart with our bodies, over which 
you will never pass, till you have planted your feet upon our graves. I say not 
this in idle bravado — we shall never leave our homes to make war upon you — 
but 1 warn you to leave us unmolested, to let us alone. You know nothing, 
sir, you know nothing, of tlie feelings of our people, determined to maintain 
their rights by their own fire-sides, at the sacrifice of every comfort, at the 
risk of every danger. 

So far as regards the mere question of slavery in the abstract, 1 am not one 
of those who believe it to be a blessing. I believe it to be an evil. And when 
I say an evil, I do not mean that its toleration is a crime, a political sin ; but 
that it is a misfortune to any people, among whom it exists. But if it were ten 
times greater an evil than it is, we will never sufler those who are uninterested 
in the matter, to interfere with us, 'i'liere is a natural repugnance in man, 
against the idle and insolent interference of others; and we never will be 
driven to do that, which, in process of time, we might have done from policy, 
and from interest. And I can assure Northern genihMiicn, that the course of 
the abolitionists has riveted the chains of slavery, with double nm\ tripple bolts 
ol steel. It has thrown back the cause of non-slavery in the South, at least a 
century. Since the peojjlc of the North have taken tiiis matter in t/uir keep- 
ing, we no longer contemplate the time in advance, when slavery is to cease 
amongst us. We had rather bear this evil, than that our enemies should 
claim as a triumph, that which future poln-y jnight have dictated to us to do 
of our own accord. 



13 

We are told by gentlemen from the North —and I am sorry to see a gen- 
tleman from the South (Mr. Botts of Virginia) has taken the same ground, 
in a card lately addressed to his constituents — that if we wish peace and quiet 
on this subject, we must receive and entertain these petitions. Then we 
must purchase peace, by what we conceive to be a surrender of our riohis. 
Can we be expected to remain tame under such an alternative as this ? '^Are 
gentlemen surprised at our excitement aud impatience, at being thus harrass- 
ed ? Do they insist, that we must not only submit to an invasion of our 
rights, but that we must not be allowed to complain ? As well miglit you 
blame the victim at the stake for his cries, or the worm for turning, when it is 
trodden upon. The discussion, on our part, is of a defensive character — we 
want no discussion — we call for no action — but we simply ask to be let alone. 
We are blamed for the tone of defiance and temper, with which we speak oii 
the subject. Gentlemen insist — and I am sorry to see that some from the 
South take that view of the matter — that we should refer and report upon 
these petitions ; and reason with the agitators, upon the impropriety of grant- 
ing their requests. For one, I cannot consent to do it. I put in a plea to the 
jurisdiction of the court. You have no power over the subject. And as to rea- 
son — what, reason with fanatics ? Attempt to discuss calmly, a question, 
with those, who are under the influence of prejudice and passion ? You might 
as well attempt to reason with a madman, upon the cause of his malady • or 
with a lover upon the folly of despondency. Such a tenacious grasp has fa- 
naticism upon the mind, that of all passions, it is the most difficult to shake 
from Its hold. It is the only influence, under whicii the human heart may 
not distrust itself. The poet beautifully expresses this idea, when he says ': 

~ " the lover may 

Distrust the look which steals his soul away ; — 
The babe may cease to think that it can play 
With heaven's rainbow ; — alchymists may doubt 
The shining gold their crucible gives out ; 
But Faith, fanatic Faith, once wedded fast 
To some dear falsehood, hugs it tu the last." 

And so with these abolitionists— they are wedded fast to a falsehood,' from 
which reason can never divorce them. We are frequently told, that these 
abolitionists, though deluded, are a respectable class, and conscientious in 
their views. Gendemen may think so, but I doubt it. If their efl^orts pro- 
ceed from a feeling of benevolence, and their real object is reform— if thev 
are following the dictates of duty, why do they not go themselves in the 
South, and preach their doctrines in person— like true and faithful missionaries 
should do ? If they were really sincere and conscientious in their course, 
they would not, like dastardly cowards, assail us from their retreats ; but 
they would preach their doctrines to a deluded people (as thev are pleased ta 
call us) even at the risk of martyrdom itself. The assurance of truth and the 
consciousness of innocence always embolden the advocates of reform ; and 
" the righteous are always as bold as a lion." Why do they not come 
amongst us in the South ? Perhaps they may convert us over to their opin- 
ion. Are they afraid that if they come, their foot-prints will all tend in one 
direction, like those of the beasts, to the sick lion's den? The fear of that 
did not intimidate the apostles of our holy religion— it did not frighten the 
great reformer of our church, to whom this fanatic banditti are frequently 
compared— and to whom I have heard the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Slade) compare them. The apostles, instead of annoying the Senate of 
Rome with their petitions, hoisted the banner of the cross, and preached the 
gospel of the Saviour in every land, unterrifled and undismayed. The great 
apostle of the Gentiles carried his doctrines to the city of the Caisars, even 
when he knew that martyrdom awaited him. What was the reply of Luther, 



14 

when warned of ilie danger of going to the Diet at Worms? Said lie, *' if 
there were as many devils there as there are tiles on the roofs of its houses, I 
would go on." 'J'ell me not of the sincerity, the valor, or the patriotism 
of tliese incendiaries. If they possess those qualities in the degree that has 
been attributed to them, they would riak something for the promulgation of 
their doctrines. As they liave assailed our institutions, it is their duty to 
come and teach us our error. Why do they not come, I ask, and attack our 
crimes and our errors, fairly and openly in the field of argument — instead of 
skulking, like Seminoles, attacking ns from the everglades and the thickets? 
Kow, I do hope that gentlemen here, who approve of their course, will per- 
suade some of them, to take pity on the poor deluded people of the South, 
to come amongst us, and enlighten us on this question. I adviiic the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Adams) — Irom Vermont, (Mr. Slade) 
from Ohio, (Mr. Giddings) — from New York, (Mr. Gatks) — and the old 
gentleman over the way (Mr. Mattocks,) who talked the other day about the 
damning sin of slavery — 1 advise them, when they return home, to persuade 
some of the leaders oi abolitionism in their districts, to take pity on our ig- 
norance in the South, to come and teach the people of 7/ij/ district, what a 
great curse slavery is. They will gain one point at least, by coming. They 
will convince ns of their sincerity. And although 1 cannot answer for the 
number of converts they may make — yet, 1 will promise them one thing — 
they shall be treated with the highest consideration. 

Sir, there is another consideration connected with this subject, which is 
not only disreputable to the country, but a reproach to the age ; and de- 
notes a vitiated state of moral feeling, that threatens to revolutionize society 
itself. It is, that this crusade against the institutions of the South, is, in a 
great degree, carried on and sustained by men professing to be the min- 
isters of the gospel of Christ, and by — I almost blush to say it — wo- 
men. I believe it was the orator of Roanoke, who once said that the worst 
government on earth was a government of priests, and die next worst, was ;i 
government of women. And if the movement which is now going on suc- 
ceeds, we are in danger of having a government of priests and women com- 
bined.' I am the last man in the world, to say any thing disrespectful of the 
true ministers of that holy religion, that was taught by the Saviour of the 
world. And nothing but an assurance, that these men arc Ixdieing their re- 
ligious j)rofessions, could induce me to speak of them with the frcod(un which 
I do. I make no pretensions to piety — yet, from my youth upward, I have 
always entertained a profound reverence for that holy religion, the truth of 
which was sealed with the blood of God himself. And, sir, Iliad always 
thought, that the tendency of this religion was to expand and elevate the soul 
— to lift its aspirations far above the perishing objects of time and sense — to 
poiiit the eye of faith to Heaven — and to administer the consolation, of a well 
spent and inolfensive life, in the hour of death. And is this bright vision of 
my youth to be dispelled — " to fly like fancy's dream," before the sad reali- 
ties of the times? No, it cannot be — it must not be. These men are belie- 
ing llieir sacred professions; they profess to be the followers of Him who 
said his kingdom was not of this world; and yet they are mingling in the 
turmoil, and fanning the fircK, of political strife. 'J'liey know not — and I sup- 
pose they care not — how much they are injuring the cause of religion, by 
violating its injunctions, while pretending to be actuated by a zeal for Us 

hUCCCSS. 

Those who know me well, know that I am incaprdjle of any disrespect to 
the fairer portion of creation. No man bows with more sincere devotion to the 
power and majesty of woman. And it 'is my great regard, my inexpressible 
veneration, for the female character, mv elevateil conception ol' its dignity and 
its worth — that canst' me to look with Michntler al>liorrence upon the conduct 



15 

of the female portion of abolition petitioners here. At least half of the sign- 
ers to these petitions, breathing "venom and denunciation against the entire 
South, are women. Sir, women have no business interfering wliere men are 
contendino- for empire. They are as until to leach us our political duties, as 
thev are to lead our armies in war, or to conduct our councils in peace. The 
scenes here are too exciting, the conflicts too bitter, for their tender and deli- 
cate natures. Their business is to soothe the impetuous and liardened na- 
ture of man, instead of exciting it into still more violent conmiotion. Their 
empire is decidedly one of the heart — 

" Wherever a tear is dried, a v^^ounded heart 
Bound up, a bruised spirit with the dew 
Of sympathy anointed, or a pang 
Of honest suticring soothed." 

there is woman's sphere, there is the proper theatre for her action. But when 
they will unsex themselves, by thrusting themselves into scenes for which na- 
ture never intended them ; they must expect their conduct to undergo the or- 
deal of criticism — for a reprobation of their course is a duty which we owe 
to others of their sex, whose modesty and sense of propriety lestrain them 
within their own sphere. It always denotes adistempered state of moral feeling, 
to see women busily interfering in the political affairs of a nation. English 
history reads us many lessons on this subject. The plans and intrigues that 
led to the elevation of Cromwell, the most tinished hypocrite of modern history 
were originated and matured at the pretended meetings for prayer, in which 
the women of the time not only participated, but exercised an important influ- 
ence. What sort of an administration had England in the reign of Charles II, 
when ministers even, held seals to-day, and were expelled from ofllce 
to-morrow, as one favorite or another happened to predominate in the Sover- 
eign's afljections. The revolution in France, was horried in its progress by 
the fish-women of Paris ; and many of the horrors of tliat bloody time, were 
perpetrated by female hands. And all the hypocritical cant of the days of 
Cromwell — all the disgusting intrigue of the court of Charles II — all the hor- 
rid excesses of the French revolution — proceeded not from a more fiendish 
spirit, than that which hurries on, in their course, the abolitionists of the pre- 
sent (lay ; for they are not only regardless of the human suffering which may 
result from their course; but the inevitable tendency of their measures, is to 
overthrow the Government itself, and thereby extinguish forever, the hopes of 
freedom throughout the world. 

Now, sir, I think the time has arrived when the North and the South 
should understand each other on this question. I wish the South to know 
who are the friends, and who the enemies of their constitutional rights. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) has said this is the greatques- 
tion— that it is a question between the North and the South — between libeity 
and slavery. He has said that the adoption of the 21st rule at the last ses- 
sion, was a then administration measure — and spoke with apparent pride, of 
the abrogation of this rule, being the first measure of the Whig administration. 
And this speech of his will be printed and sent abroad to the world, as having 
received the tacit sanction of the members from the North. Are Northern 
gentlemen willing to endorse this proposition ? If they are not, why have 
they not disclaimed it ? Now, if the gentleman from Massachusetts is right, 
and the reception of abolition petitions is the great question which supersedes 
all others — if Northern gentlemen are to annoy us eternally on this sulijoct — • 
if all political and party difterences are to be merged in one great issue of 
sectional feeling — the sooner we know it the better. For no matter what 
political diflerences may have existed among us heretofore, yet, my word lor 
it, on this question the South will stand firm as one man— not for tlie pur- 
pose of offence—nol for the purpose of aggression— but for the purpose ol 



IC 

defending ourselves, against a lawless anJ insolent interference with otir 
rights. And according to the position of the gentleman IVon^ Massachusetts, 
we are bound to consider the rescinding of this rule at this time — if not as a 
direct attack upon us — as a tacit sanction of the mad measures of those, who 
have for years, been endeavoring to light the torch of the incendiary for our 
dwellings, and to sharpen the knife of the assassin for our throats. 

We know no party difl'erences at the South on this subject. And if any 
portion or party in the North attempt to deprive us of our rights, be tliey 
Whigs or be they Democrats, we shall regard them as our enemies, and deal 
with them as such. And on the other hand, if any portion or parly in the 
North shall, in the discharge of their constitntional duty, come to our relief 
on this question, we are bound, not only on the principle of gratitude, but of 
self-preservation, to consider them as friends, and to unite with them as such. 
And, sir, I will take this occasion, to tender my sincere thanks, in itie name 
of my State and of my constituents, to those from the non-slaveholding States 
who voted with us on this question — who took counsel of their duty rather 
than of their fears. 

The course of Northern gentlemen who have acted with us on this matter, 
presents an instance of high moral sublimity — of noble self-sacriiloing devo- 
tion. They had every thing to lose and nothing to gain at home, and yet, in 
discharge of a constitutional obligation, they have come to the relief of the 
unoffending South. 

Mr. Speaker, let it be recollected, we of the South did not commence this 
controversy. We wish no excitement on this subject: all we ask, is to be 
let alone. We wished to proceed to business under the rules of the last 
Congress, till new ones can be reported ; but the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts, (Mr. Adams,) and those who sustain him, objected to this; they rel'use 
to move one step ; they refuse to organize this House, till they have triumph- 
ed over the feelings of southern men; and when we complain, they turn 
upon us with scorn and insult, and accuse us of agitation — agitation. We 
know our position here. Although we are but defending ourselves^ yet we 
are taunted with creating excitement. I call upon this House, and this coun- 
try to witness, that we of the South arc not responsible for the consumption 
of time, and excitement of feeling growing out of this discussion. T^c know 
that we came here for a different purpose. Jf'e know that we came here for 
the purpose of trying to heal the sullerings, and to relieve the currency and 
finances, of tlie nation. The very men who taunt us with this delay, are the 
ones, who suffer themselves to be diverted from the great purposes for which 
we assembled — who neglect the important interests of the country — merely 
for the purpose of pandering, to the prejudice and bigotry of those whose 
very element is mischief, and the success of whose schemes must inevitably 
result in disunion. 

This 21st rule was not originally passed for the purpose of enabling the 
South to oppress the North, as contended by the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts, in the fury of his temper and the wildness of his imagination; but it 
was passed for the purpose of defending the South, against the unjust aggres- 
sions and hypocritical j)hilanthropy of a band of fanatics at the North, who 
are urged on and instigated by a few political discontents, who hate us and 
our institutions on account of some political pique. 'J'he gentleman from 
Massachusetts said the object of southern gentlemen, in voting for this rule, 
was to screen themselves from the charge of abolitionism at home. Is this 
all the charily that gentleman has learnt in a life of near fifty years of public 
.service ? What rigiit has he to im[)ugn the motives of others .' Who made 
him a judge of tiie hcarls of men ? liy what authority does he condemn ihe 
motives of men, who act under the same responsibility to God and their 
country, that he docs .' It is as illiberal and unkind in him to make the charge 



ir 

he does, as it wcwld be in me to say, that his motives, in puisuinjf the course 
he does, is to create an insurrection amono; tlie slaves at the South. 

T'le (jentlenian from Massachusetts says, the reason wiiy we are not wil- 
linir to listen to the prayers of the abohtionists is, that " conscience makes 
cowards ot'us." Which is the most cowardly, to defend our rights on our 
own soil, or to take advantage of our position, to assail with impunity the 
riidits of others ? According to the code, which prevails in this land ol 
" cowards," as the gentleman would call us, it is considered the greatest evi- 
dence of cowardice, for any one to take advantage of age or station, to cast his 
insults and denunciations upon his unoffending neighbors. " Cowards" as 
we may be, we have magnanimity enough, to spare those who are shielded 
by their irresponsibility. 

We of the South, I repeat, are not responsible for this discussion, and the 
excitement growing out of it: we were content with the rule of the last ses- 
sion ; we were ojiposed to agitating the subject. But, sir, if the issue must 
be made, if the war must come, Me are ready to meet you — if you will come 
out, and take your position in a fair field. Don't send your missiles from 
your secret retreats, but come out boldly, and we are ready to meet you, first 
in argument, and after that is exhausted, we know by what we are to stand. 
Gentlemen may call this mere declamation — idle gasconade ; I liave no doubt 
they wdl ; that is the usual answer that right and justice usually receive, from 
the cold heardess voice of arrogance and oppression. IJut no, sir, we warn 
you now to let us alone, to leave us unmolested in the enjoyment of our un- 
doubted rights. 

If you are resolved to force this issue upon us, I repeat again, I for one 
am ready to meet it. There are others here who are ready to meet it — others, 
whose voices have so often been liaised in support of constitutional right — 
who have not quailed before oppression at home, and who are not likely to 
yield to it from abroad. I was pleased at the gallant manner, in which the 
gentleman t>om Maryland, (Mr. Johnson) — the gentleman from Virginia, 
(Mr. Wise,) and the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. King,) met this question 
at the very threshhold. They have given warning, that they are ready to 
meet the enemies of our institutions, on the ramparts. There are others here, 
who are ready to stand by diem. We have taken our position. We stand 
on the defensive. We plant ourselves on the platform of the Constitution. 
We ask for notliing, but the enjoyment of those constitutional rights and pri- 
vdeges, guaranteed to us by the fathers of the republic. From this position 
we wdl not be driven. Gentlemen are mistaken, if they suppose they are to 
crush us, and trample on our rights, by mere brute force — by a mere majori- 
ty of numbers in (his hall. Those who are congratulating themselves, with 
the idea of having defeated us, will yet find, that the " race is not always to 
the swift, nor the batUe to the strong." They will yet find, that there is a 
moral power in being in the right, which will defy all their assaults. Men, 
yes, men who know their rights, are not to be deterred from the exercise of 
those rights, by a band of fanatics, who are attempting to wield a rod of 
terror over this hall, and who, I am sorry to say, do exercise an mllu- 
ence here, incompatible with the dignity of this House, and the character of 
this country. It is not because we fear the assaults of this seditious clan — 
it is not that we doubt our ability to protect ourselves against all their machi- 
nations — that we are opposed to the reception of their abusive memorials ; 
but, sir, it is because we dmi't choose — no sir, we don't choose to be annoyed 
by this insolent interference with our concerns — and because we believe fur- 
ther, that it is calculated to sow the seeds of dissention and of disunion 
throughout the land. 

The gentleman from Massacliusetts remarked that these incendiaries were 



18 

actuated by tho same principle, as that depicted in the armorial bearintfs of the 
State of Virginia — wliicli is a beautiful woman trampling on tl:e neck of a ty- 
rant, with the motto. Sic semper tyrannis. Yes, sir, and as long as Virgi- 
ivia remains true to that motto, she will deluge her borders in blood, sooner 
than suffer her rights and privileges thus rumlessly to be invaded, Sir, what 
is tyranny ? It is an unjust and unlawful interference, with the rights ot oth- 
ers. AVhy was George III. denominated a "tyrant" in the Declaration of 
Independence? It was because he dared to infringe upon the rights of the 
colonies — rights which were guaranteed to the subjects of the Uriti:ih cr-jwn, 
by the usages of ages, and the laws of the realm. And whenever you of the 
North, attempt to encroach upon the constitutional privilecres of us of the 
South, we shall regard you as attempting to play the part of ty;ants, and we 
will treat you as such. We oppose to your assaults, that same motto of the 
Virginia arms — Sic semper tyrnnnis. And whenever you attempt to rob us 
of our rights, yon will liiul — not a beautiful woman, for mc do not call upon 
women to light our battles, as your incendiaries do, but — men, yes, men, 
with stout hearts and strong arms, trampling you under our feet, and your 
crown and sceptre trailing i,i the dust. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts took the daring groui.d, that al- 
though tills Government might not disturb, in the first instance, the 
institution of slavery in the States of this Union, yet, it might in- 
terpose as the treaty-making power, in case of a servile insurrection, 
even to the extent of universal emancipation. This is the boldest ground I 
have ever heard assumed, even by the most ultra aboUlionists. Is such lan- 
guage as this, to be proclaimed on this floor, and to be {)asseil over without 
notice — especially, when we consider the high source whence it comes ? And 
are we to be charged with creating " agitation," when we rise to protest 
against it? When such language is used here, " I will speak, thoug'i hell 
itself should ga{)e, and bid me hold my peace." Interpose as tiie treaty- 
making power ! Between whom ? Between the slaves and their masters? 
Does ttie gentleman from IVIassachuselts pretend to say, that, in case oi' a ser- 
vile insurrection, the slaves would maintain the position of an uidependcnt 
belligerent power? How can this be, when slaves are recognised as proper- 
ty, in the Constitution — virtually property, as irmch so, as are (>ur lan'is, and 
the stock that grazes them. Hovv can this Government constitutionally in- 
terfere, for the purpose of securing political privileges to our slaves, when 
they are not recognised as citizens in that instrument, or as entitled to any po- 
litical rights whatever? Does he not see to what an absurdity this argument 
would lead him I Suppose the agrarian mol)s in your Northern cities uorc 
to rise in commotion, and attempt to appropriate to themselves the property 
of the wealthy, and the proceeds of the honest man's industry. Suppose 
they were to bid defiance to the laws— provetoo strong lor the civil power — 
and threaten to overthrow the authority of the local government, against which 
they might be in arms. Will it be pretended, that this (Jovernment might in- 
terpose in such case, as the treaty-making power, to the extent ol salislying 
the inordinate demands of these insurrectionists, bv securing to them t!ie i)ro- 
perly, which they had taken by violence? Such arirument is based uptm the 
Piippositiou, that the Constitution provides for enloiciiig a violation of its ex- 
pie.--s provisions. 

Mr. Speaker, the scene exhibite<l in this House for the last few days, must 
be iiumilialing to every hii;h minded American citizen, not only on account 
tif the evil consecjnences likely to result from it, but on account of the spec- 
tacle aflbrdcil by the gentleman from iMassai'hu'--elts, (Mr. Auams.) Here is 
a linn, who lia-i filled ihe highest oflici; in this land of freedom, apjilying the 
Jlre-brand to the very fabric, which was, in a great part, reared by his veneraU-d 
lathi.T. Here is a man, over whose liead has passed seventy summ.'i's, who — 



19 

instead of exhibiting the sober tliscrclion, and cahii phdosophy of age — is in»- 
dulging in gusts of passion, unbecoming the ardour of youth ; and scattering 
his denunciations with an unsparing liand, against the very inen, many of 
whom fell, as political martyrs, for their devotion to his cause. Here is a man, 
who, instead of attempting to uphold the institutions, over which he once pre- 
sided — instead of trying to cement that union, without whicdi liberty itself is 
an abstraction — has uniurled the blood-red flag of insurrection, and has invited 
the slave to obliterate the brand of his servitude, with his master's blood. He 
has virtually said to our slaves — and his declaration has gone abroad on the 
wings of the wind — if you wish the interposition of this Government, you 
must tirst raise the standard of revolt. He has virtually said to them, com- 
mence the work of rapine and murder, spread desolation and dismay through- 
out your land, apply to us with your hands reeking with slaughter — we can 
then interpose, and lor the purpose of restoring peace, we will come in as the 
treaty-making power, and will stipulate for your " universal emancipatir.n." 
If the spirits of the departed were allowed to revisit this world, such language 
would have been sufficient to exorcise from their graves, the ghi^ats of our 
revolutionary fathers, and cause them to stalk in gloomy consternation, 
through this hall. But sir, they are gone, gone to enjoy the rewards of the 
faithful, and with them, the virtue and patriotism of their names seem to havo 
departed. But that I know any advice I might give the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, would be treated with sullen contempt, I would advise him to 
curb his unruly temper. I would suggest to him, that all the learning of the 
schools, all the experience of years, all the honors of station — in the absence 
of temper and discretion, without a due exercise of charity for the opinions 
and feelings of others — are but " as sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal." 
I would advise him to read again, a poem which I presume he has often read, 
but by which he seems never to have profited. I mean Haley's " Triumphs 
of Temper," and especially these four last lines— 

" Virtue's an ingot of Peruvian gold, 
Sense the bright ore Potosis' mines unfold, 
But iemper^fi image must their pow'r create, 
And stamp these precious metals with sterling weight." 

Mr. Speaker, I would make an appeal to our Northern brethren here, but that 
I know, the complaints of the injured are always treated with scorn, by 
the oppressor. I would appeal to them, in the name of justice, not to attempt 
to rob us of our acknowledged rights. I would appeal to them, in the name of 
Christian benevolence, to cease this warfare against their own brethren, the 
descendants of a common ancestry, the participators in one common inheri- 
tance of freedom. I would appeal to them, by the expended blood and trea- 
sure of our fathers — by the examples which they set us, and the precepts 
which they taught us — not to destroy by faction, the work of their common 
hands. I would appeal to them in the name of the Constitution, not to over- 
leap those barriers, which the sages of the past erected around the rights of the 
States. Above all, sir, I would appeal to them in the name of this glorious 
Union, without which 1 cannot contemplate liberty except as an ideality-— 
which is the terror of tyrants, and which is identified with the hopes of free- 
dom ' riroughout the world — which imparts to the star-spangled banner its glory, 
and to the American citizen, his port of noble bearing in every land — which 
is fast sending the blessings of free government, of civilization, and of the 
Christian faith, through the trackless forests that stretch towards the shores 
of the Pacific — by this Union I would appeal to them, to arrest the progress 
of faction, before it shall be too late; to stop the march of fanaticism, before it 
shall have undermined the very foundations of our political fabric. Sir, we 
are apt to inid<^rv;ibie those blessings, to wliir-h we havo been accustomed 



20 

from cliildhooL!, and whose deprivation we have never leli. We never know 
the value of heaUh, till we are j)rostrated by sickness — we never appreciate 
the blessing of friendship, till we are deprived of its aid — or as the poet beau- 
tifully expresses it — 

How blessings brighten, as they take their flight. 

And so it is, with this happy Union. We never shall know how to es- 
timate its value, until it shall be severed by discord and faction. We of the 
South love this Union, because it secures to us our liberties ; but Ave shall 
hate it in turn, when it is converted into an engine of tyranny. And when 
the cloud of civil commotion shall lower over our political horizon, and striie 
and dissention shall stalk through the land — when the pillars of this fair fab- 
ric of frteedom shall begin to crumble, and the citadel of our national glory is 
top;)liiig into ruin — when brothers'' hands shall reek with brothers' slaughter, 
and the sun of our liberty shall go down in blood — then, and not till then, 
shall we a;>preciate the blessings of this Union, wiiich a reckless fanaticism is 
now shaking to its centre. 






^ 

^ 



4 



